Presenter: John Nanson

The Hungarian nonviolent Movement for Independence 1.Background – Historical context preceding the movement and the neo absolutist context of the movement. 2.The characteristics of the movement. 3.The impact upon the non violent theory and action.

Hungarian Historical Context Sixteenth Century Decline – imperial policy of the Ottomans and Hapsburgs Despised by Hungarians – Magyar nationalism European Revolts Hungary gained independence and autonomy from Hapsburgs. Led by radicals – Lajos Kossuth and István Szechenyi Counter Revolt 1849 – established neo absolutism.

Neo Absolutism Francis Joseph and Charles I – repressive regime – frightened of a future rebellion. Policy of ‘Germanization’ by Czech Government officials. Very unpopular with all levels of society. Varying types of resistance – violent protest under Garibaldi and Kossuth achieved dual monarchy -> Austria- Hungary

Ferenc Deák County Gentleman, part of the nobility, lived on country estate. Lawyer had previously worked under the Hapsburgs. During the revolution negotiated between Kossuth’s extreme liberals and the Hapsburgs. Roman Catholic and educated, but religion and intellectual reasoning did not motivate his nonviolent resistance.

Passive Resistance Belief that the Hapsburg empire parasitic, would not be able to function without cooperation, refusal to participate in public affairs. Explicitly nonviolent, did not wish to damage property or humans. See quote (1) – Slogan ‘Detest absolutism and ignore its servants as if they were not living amongst us’ [What this tells us.]

The Three Phases. 1.Deák living at country manor, directing non co operation. – non payment of taxes, speaking in Magyar. 2. Deák moved to Pést 1854, used people power more, emperors birthday, Vörösmarty’s funeral, pamphlets onwards – entered dialogue with government, a crucial political actor in the 1867 compromise, a trusted figure.

Defining Characteristics Nationalism – nineteenth century context. See Quote (2). Directed against a violent and imperial power and yet still achieved Deák’s aim. Importance of a strong leader with a coherent strategy. Non Violent Resistance from internal or external perspective.

How he has been viewed. Three streams of thought. 1.Positively – Gandhi see quote (3) and Richard Gregg. Saw him as successful and worth emulating. 2.Non violence as futile ‘waiting for good fortune’ ‘non violence in the long run is not practical’ (Kiraly) 3.Completely ignored or seen as a marginal figure compared to Kossuth – AJP Taylor and Peter Hanák

Legacy – 3 categories On the nonviolent movement – minimal – Gandhi and Gregg only ‘big names’ who refer to him. In history – well respected, but before 1860 his actions seen very negatively. In Hungary – Huge. National figure of great importance national day of remembrance. Own square. Importance in Hungarian national tradition. See quote (4)